rom the date of publication of his
photographs; and there can be little doubt that this is the right way to
deal with the two branches of copyright. The artist who paints a picture
signs it, and there is no difficulty in knowing who is the author of a
painting and in whom the term of copyright is vested. In a very large
number of cases a photograph is taken by an employee, who is here to-day
and gone to-morrow, and even his employer knows nothing of his
existence. Of course, it may suit an employer to be able to maintain
secrecy as to the authorship of his negative, inasmuch as it enables him
to go on claiming copyright fees indefinitely; but it is not to the
public interest. In most countries on the continent of Europe a
photographer has the fixed term of five years' copyright in an original
photograph dating from its publication, which date, together with the
name and address of the photographer, has to be stamped on every copy
issued. In the public interest this is a good method of dealing with
photographs.

24. The "authorship" of a photograph has been much debated in the law
courts; and "author" was defined in _Nollage_ v. _Jackson_ (1883) as
"the man who really represents or creates, or gives to ideas, or fancy,
or imagination, true local habitation--the man in fact who is most
nearly the effective cause of the representation" (_per_ Lord Justice
Bowen). He is not necessarily the owner of the camera, or the proprietor
of the business; it depends on the circumstances. He is essentially the
person who groups and effectively superintends the picture. When a
photographer takes a portrait without fee, the copyright vests in him
and not in the sitter, who cannot prevent its publication; but if the
photograph is commissioned and paid for by the sitter the copyright--in
the absence of contrary stipulations--vests in him, and he can restrain
exhibition or multiplication of copies; "the bargain includes, by
implication, an agreement that the prints taken from the negative are to
be appropriated to the use of the customer only" (Mr Justice North in
_Pollard_ v. _Photographic Co._, 1888). And this applies even when the
sitter is not the actual purchaser of the negative (_Boucas_ v. _Cooke_,
1903). But in several cases the "celebrity" who has _sat_ to a
photographer at his request and without payment has not been allowed to
distribute his photograph to newspapers for reproduction without the
photographer's consent. The fact th